"Fiat money is backed by men with guns; Bitcoin is not. So why should this thing have any value?"--Uber statist economist Paul Krugman.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Two thoughts (and only two) on the Bradley Manning conviction

1. The judge had little or no choice in this verdict. It was quite predictable. "Jury nullification" is not an option for trial officers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In fact, I'd argue that the judge has been, so far, as lenient as it was possible to be, and sent a significant message in declining to find Manning guilty of providing aid to the enemy.

2. I can't figure out how to triangulate the public reaction to this verdict against the public reaction to the Zimmermann verdict. In its own way the Manning trial outcome has the potential to be just as divisive as the Florida shooting, but the lines seem to fall much differently. I've seen people who think Zimmermann was a hero both condemn and praise Manning; likewise with people who believe Zimmermann got away with murder. Strangely, I find it a hopeful sign that we don't always divide along the same lines.

"In fact, I'd argue that the judge has been, so far, as lenient as it was possible to be"

Then you are batshit insane.

In her role as judge, Lind openly and flagrantly violated Articles 92, 98 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, multiple times.

According to the law -- you know, that thing she was supposed to apply as judge -- the prosecution itself was illegal, as the Army detained Manning for FOUR TIMES the absolute, non-negotiable maximum time before arraignment.

According to the law, the prosecution doesn't get to call new non-rebuttal witnesses and present new evidence after both it and the defense have rested their cases.

According to the law, the prosecution doesn't get to change the charges (!) after closing arguments.

Stalin's pet judges would have blushed at the shit Lind pulled.

Her future career should start with disbarment, proceed to indictment, and end in Club Fed.